Skip to main content

FemFrame

FemFrame
Mètode

GenderMag

GenderMag is a method that allows analyzing software interfaces by identifying possible differences in use according to different cognitive patterns that are often associated with gender. Its objective is to To make digital interfaces more inclusive , understandable and usable for a diversity of people, especially women and non-technical profiles.

Abbreviation GenderMag
Origin and context

Margaret Burnett and team at Oregon State University, 2016

Principles

People have different cognitive styles that can impact how they interact with technology. Designs often make implicit assumptions that favor a male, tech-savvy user profile. With GenderMag we identify and analyze these aspects through the use of archetypal “personas”.

Abby is a smart and skilled professional, but she doesn’t consider herself technical . When using a digital tool, she can:

Feeling insecure if there are too many options or if you don’t clearly understand what will happen.
Being afraid of losing information or spoiling something.
Look for detailed instructions before you start.
Wanting to fulfill your task and that’s it, not exploring for pleasure.

GenderMag uses Abby to “make the invisible visible” and bring to the table frictions that go unnoticed by technical profiles. She suggests that we put ourselves in her shoes to identify possible barriers in design.

Components

Cognitive pattern:
Cognitive patterns are the basic building blocks of our mental processes. They provide us with a framework for organizing information, making decisions, and solving problems. Just as a painter uses different brushstrokes to create a masterpiece, our cognitive patterns shape the way we think and approach various situations.
https://oddnoodle.com/cognitive-patterns/

Cognitive dimensions (“facets”): 5 aspects that tend to show statistical differences by gender and that affect the use of technology:

  • Motivation

  • Information processing style

  • Digital self-efficacy

  • Attitude towards risk

  • Learning style (tinkering vs. process).

Evaluation forms:

  • Subgoal Report Form: to analyze whether the fictitious person would correctly identify each subgoal within the task.

  • Action Report Form: to analyze whether the fictitious person would perform the actions and whether they would understand that they are progressing towards their goal.

Archetypal people: fictional characters created with differentiated profiles:

  • Abi: most common cognitive tendencies in women according to research

  • Tim: most common tendencies in men

  • Pat: intermediate profile, represents people with mixed characteristics

Evaluation team:
Essential roles: Facilitator (guides the session), Driver (interacts with the interface), Recorder (documents responses and decisions).

Operating guide

In the process:

  1. We choose a specific functionality or task of the software.

  2. Let’s analyze how Abby (and optionally other characters) would do this task.

  3. We detect points where she could get stuck or frustrated.

We propose changes to make the system more inclusive

Advantages
  • It provides a structured and research-based approach.
  • Easy to learn and apply in multidisciplinary teams.
  • It does not require prior knowledge in gender studies.
  • It promotes inclusion as an integral part of the design process.
Limitations

It may require time and attention from the team in each assessment session.
You need to avoid simplistic or stereotype-based applications: archetypal people are guides, not universal patterns.

 

Common difficulties:

  • Confusing conceptual sub-objectives with specific actions.
  • Respond from the evaluators’ personal point of view (“I think that…”).
  • Advance to the simulated person’s responses.
To take into account

It is a very widespread method, especially among the training community. Very specific to UX.

Although it is open to diversity and makes it clear that it is not about stereotypes, there is a risk of applying it in a stereotypical way.

Furthermore, it is a process in which other people put themselves “in the shoes of”, which can be limiting. It would be more desirable to have a real group of diverse users with whom to talk and consult directly.

Documentation

Peters, Anicia; and Jernigan, William. “GenderMag: A Method for Evaluating Software’s Gender Inclusiveness” (2016). Computer Science: Faculty Publications , Smith College, Northampton, MA.

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/csc_facpubs/364

Official website with resources: https://gendermag.org/

From GenderMag to InclusiveMag: An Inclusive Design Meta-Method
https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~burnett/Reprints/vlhcc19-inclusiveMag.pdf

AID: An Automated Inclusivity-Bug Detector
https://youtu.be/V_87N2pkVMQ?si=CVnFSqsDGFptU6Nh

Practical examples

Supporting gender-neutral digital library creation: a case study using the GenderMag toolkit

https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/b1c247ce-91e3-488e-874e-f3135a475312/content